Internet Engineering Task Force 111, 29 Jul 2021

Previous Meeting Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: IETF111-RFCEFDP-20210729-2200

Description

RFCEFDP meeting session at IETF111
2021/07/29 2200

https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/111/proceedings/

A

A

A

All right, I think most people are back um so uh we're here at uh rsca, higher fire management and I'm going to turn off and we'll bring up the github tracker and.

A

A

Ella you want to bring that up. Yep.

A

So we are starting at issue.

A

A

A

There we go how to select the selection committee.

A

Be good to make that along yeah, I don't know I'll get my own window bigger and see if that hard to read okay, so um there was the who creates the committee that selects rsea.

A

um Do we have text on this? Oh yeah? Is there text? I don't.

B

A

Is there text okay,.

B

A

B

Say it's up to the llc sorry to skip the line here, but I think I think we have text on this.

A

Right, I mean it, they have to hire; it ultimately has to be up to them, but is there is there discussion on on on? This? Is the people? What what is it that people would want other than just leaving it up to the llc to do it.

A

I don't know if you have anything to add here.

C

Jay and text, those kind of text is fine for me.

A

Okay, joel, you are in the.

D

Queue, thank you. The the main thing was that there was various discussions of various ideas as to who the llc should be mandated to have in the loop in order to try to make sure that the right thing has happened, and I I was one of the people who thought that was a good idea that, which is why I've gotten on here now, because the more I've thought about it. The more I listen to the discussion. I think it doesn't work, and so we just will have to go with keeping it general.

A

A

I think the comment came from miriah.

A

Are you around? Do you want to contribute anything here.

E

um I sorry I I have a vague memory that we did change this already or not, or did we just discuss that already at least.

A

Well, we currently have it's just the executive director and they take into account the role definition so like.

E

I thought we had a revised text somewhere. That said, um that didn't actually talk about having a committee that, like just said, that the director is responsible for um making finding a way for making this election, where comedy might be one option, but um sorry, yeah.

A

Do you think that that's important? Do you think that this text is harmful.

E

um So that was the basis of my of my comment here. My issue here was that I'm not sure if we need that level of detail, I don't think it's super harmful but like if we just take it out, I'm fine as well.

A

Any anyone else want to contribute. Martin.

F

Probably sort of try to split the difference between what miri is suggesting and and otherwise, and simply say that the llc is responsible for making uh any hiring or contracting decision and and leave it at that. Obviously, that probably falls to the executive director, but um there's no need to specify that so directly.

A

Jay any problem with that lucy I see you in in queue all.

C

Sorry, no, no problem. For me I mean I I I like the um the statement about forming a search committee because it links that to the community. It ensures that there is community involvement in the hiring process, but if it's not there, I'm not going to object to it. That's fine.

A

G

I had a question for jay, which is: uh is there currently language in your contract, about the process that you use when you're contracting for other roles? Would that cover? This is community consultation, part of that.

C

There isn't anything in there about that that I'm aware of, and I don't think there is in um uh any of the rfcs either that govern the um ihf llc.

G

So the llc delegates to you and you determine a process.

C

um The the the board may give me um stronger instructions, but generally that's the case. Yes,.

G

Okay, I've got a martin. I would probably support your proposal. Then.

A

Any anyone else, peter.

H

Purposes could somebody restate what the proposal that everybody's agreeing to is.

A

The llc decides.

A

Nothing else yeah the llc selects the the uh rca. That's it.

B

Yeah this is peter, I not with my editor hat on I like having something about a search committee or a selection committee, or whatever we call it. um I think otherwise there could be concern that you know the llc executive director is going to shoulder tap someone and uh you know not have a open process or that kind of thing. So I think specifying that we have a search committee is a good idea.

A

A

No audio yet mike.

I

Sorry, one of the things that should go here in here, possibly is the pot- is the possible ability of hiring a search firm specifically for this job, in conjunction with the search committee, um I it's still up to the llc, but one of the things one of the things that triggered all this was the rsoc saying. Well, we only got one person applying for the job the last time around, so I don't know.

I

Does that make sense all right.

A

I don't think we want to say that in the in the document, I I think that's again up to the llc to decide.

A

That's me here. Yeah.

E

Yeah, just I'm writing down that. We have a comment. He doesn't guarantee that we have any kind of open process or community involvement or whatever. um If you want that, you should spread it out. If you, if you want to say the process about searching, should be open, then we should write that down.

A

So it seems like there's mild sentiment for leaving the search committee in the text.

A

A

uh Maybe I might suggest rewording it so that the llc is in charge, but there is a search committee it may delegate to edd, but it it ultimately hires.

C

So um the the the the point that miriam was making- I understand so the the word search committee- is a little bit problematic here. What I'm suggesting is that it. What is useful to me is that it is a group of community people that meet and choose the rsea. That is that's what's useful.

C

Yes, I would use a search firm to do that with you know, I'm not going to attempt to do it myself, that's silly um and the the in the way that it happens so far is that for a role of that level, the llc board is the final sign off. So I go and say right. This is the candidate that I have you know chosen through this process or has been chosen through.

E

C

Do you sign off at that stage? Okay, now we can put that in all. We can do as martin says and just say that the llc will just follow its standard process for recruitment. You know and and put something in ensuring community engagement and involvement in the process.

A

uh Okay, I uh maybe we we should fall back on what we've done all the way so far, which is charge you and and and peter with constructing the text that that does that, I think that's. I think that everybody is going that way.

E

H

Is sort of right.

E

Now, just replace community committee with community here.

H

No, that doesn't work because otherwise the the rca is selected by the community.

E

It the the llc, takes information into account that the community deems.

A

E

A

ah Right, it's an advisory, it doesn't it it. It is ultimately llc has to decide that they like this they're paying for it. So the committee advises.

H

Jay is this something you can live with.

A

Others um we wanted.

D

A

Committee in there expressly, I think, yeah.

D

I thought we wanted to have a committee that this we're not trying to create an open committee that everybody in the community gets to give input on every candidate and review candidates and put together the list of no no that's a disaster, but we do want jet. It helps jay to be and the llc for this to be told. We expect you to delegate this to a commit, a set of people to do a bunch of the initial work that come from the community as representatives, we can't have the whole committee doing this gods.

D

E

It was not what I was asking for, but if you actually want to specify here that you want a search committee, then um I think you have to say something about who is supposed to be on that committee, because you can always have a search committee and just put like the best three friends on it and it would not be open at all right. So that's not what you want to achieve.

E

I think what you want to achieve is some openness, and if you want to go into into more level of detail about making clear that there has to be a committee that had also have to provide more information about how this community is selected.

B

Yeah this is peter. I think what I heard from what jay was saying was to address that concern. Media is to say it's a search committee formed from amongst the community. You know, members of the community um that way that we have that community engagement as um jay put it, and that seems to address the concern and that I can craft some text along those lines.

E

It's not only members of the community, because my three best friends are also part of the community right. It has to be somehow an open process to find these people.

I

um I the trade-off is between confidence and openness. I would be going for confidence. I'd actually be looking for specific people with experience in the space to be on the slide on the search committee um and again, like I said it may be more, it may make more sense to go professional, uh the professional uh uh executive search type of thing than it is to try and do this as a volunteer effort yeah. I think I get really nervous about trying to make everything in this ietf a completely community guest gets to touch everything.

I

It's it's starting to scare me again,.

B

A

You're you're, uh muted, jay.

C

Nope I told you there.

J

C

Go the the committee that I am specifically interested in is the committee that assesses candidates brought from the firm together with the ietf executive director and which produces the recommended candidate at the end of it, um using a search firm to do that with so that the decision about who that person is is not solely an llc decision.

C

Given that there are so many community views on what this type of person should be, that can, some of which I'm sure can be captured within the um the role definition, but many of which are, you know more visceral than that, and so that's why I'm suggesting that as um the way forward in that type of committee.

A

H

All right, clearly I I I what you're suggesting jay is that there now should be a text around a committee in here or um and uh that that is representative of the community, or I I mean I. I guess I at one point I think I heard you say you don't want the term committee or this term search committee there, but you do want some committee. Can you be just a little more explicit for me? Sorry.

C

My preference is for it to talk about um committee, but if it doesn't, I'm happy for it just to talk about you know involving the community and if it I, I don't actually have I'm not. I don't really mind what the text is. I just want to make sure that we have a conceptual understanding about what the actual process will be.

C

We can scale the text for how much detail we want to put that in so either we put that at a principled level, or we put that at a you know a very detailed level, but currently, I think in we have an in principle disagreement here about whether the community is actually selecting somebody or whether the community is simply being involved in specifying what the requirements are and bringing in the candidates.

A

And you're voting for the former, not the latter.

H

No, the latter, not the former.

C

Yes, I am voting for the former that the community, together with the llc, chooses the candidate okay. It's not just.

A

Construction, it's a selection committee, not a search committee. Yes, not.

J

Generating candidates.

A

It's evaluating.

J

C

Yes, that's right.

A

G

There is probably a a standard format for this in the way that the iab requests volunteers for things like liaison positions.

G

If the llc did a process where they requested volunteers for a committee across the broad spectrum of communities interested in the rfc series and then made a selection of a committee, that committee could then support jay and I like having it come through. The llc since they're nom come appointed and answerable to the community.

A

um All right, martin.

F

Rapidly closing on something here either. This is good uh I've put in some text above, I noticed that elliot's typing. Curiously, there I've made a recommendation there, um and I changed that just now to selection committee rather than search committee to, I think, jay's feedback is good there. um It will use members from the community be responsible, making a recommendation to the llc for the rca and they'll take into account all the role, definitions and information from the community and the llc is responsible for contracting.

F

I think that captures all the points that we've said thus far without being overly prescriptive.

F

Does that make sense yeah.

E

uh Miriam you jay for for summarizing this problem, because I think I'm actually in the in the second bucket here where I think the requirements from the community should be super clear. But then the details on how these requirements are actually um implemented is is less important, and so I don't think it needs to be the community who actually is involved in the selection.

E

As long as the requirements from the community are very clear um if the lsc who would be responsible for selection, then decides they want to have some additional community members to get more input for their finance decision. You know that's an implementation detail and they can always do that, but it also seems to be a little bit of of overhead to me to actually have a appointment process to form a committee to then appoint somebody basically.

A

uh Lucy you're still on you do you want to say something else? No, um so I I think we're heading in a uniform direction. uh Lucy did confuse me a little bit. I I don't think lucy that you really wanted to have a committee find participants, a search committee, that I don't think you were arguing for that.

A

B

We previously used the term search committee and- and that's.

A

What's in the draft right now, I.

B

Believe but I think the j's point is well taken.

A

Yes, all right, so at this point um you have text uh that that uh um elliott has in that window. You have text in the chat box. um I think we should give leave it to you and jay to um uh take all of that construct, something uh and and uh propose it as candidate text to include in the in the document.

H

Just I just want to note that I did hear um uh what I think is two dissenting points of view on this text.

H

um Just that we're clear, I think, miriah, you were just dissenting if I misunderstood, unless I misunderstood that this this is, this is sort of the bucket one version and I think joel. You were also dissenting from this text. If I, unless I misunderstood- and I just want to give you two the opportunity to confirm or deny my understanding.

D

I can live with this text. I have no problem with it. I was dissenting from what I heard myria asking for which I may have misunderstood what she was asking for.

H

Okay, miriah did I misunderstand: you she's got a comment in the.

E

Yeah, I just posted in the chat that the text is fine. For me I would prefer less detail, but what's written right now is fine for me.

H

Okay, all right! Thank you all.

A

All right uh we've done that, and our next issue is.

A

B

Yeah, I think uh brian and elliot- and I were talking uh to try to put together the topics, and I think I saw this as one that impinged upon this whole topic of how do we select our the rca and so on, and so anyway. I think this is an important topic to address here. In this context,.

A

uh Okay mike started this: do you want to add anything to your original issue.

I

Rereading this um I actually didn't realize this was going to come up today.

I

I don't think I want to anything um at this point. I don't know where we go with text for it, though, to be honest,.

A

Right what what what would what do you think it ought to say and, and specifically does it, do you think it really does tie into what the rsea does? In other words, is this how we measure success of the rsea or how we measure success of the whole process.

I

I'm actually looking at this as how the whole process we've got. A lot of um moving. uh We've got a little bit a lot of moving parts. um We've got um some.

I

You know tensions between the rsa being in the rswg and who decides um we have a.

I

We don't have anything in there for failure of the rswg that you know it goes off into never never land. um It would be. I think we, I think, we've dealt with some of this by basically talking about the fact that they have to be paid for and there's a process for doing that. Piece of the evaluation has been being added into this process.

I

um So there's a monetary skeleton that we've we've just built here, I'm wondering if there are I'm wondering.

I

If we know enough about where we want to be in five years- or maybe that should be the first documentary wg puts about you- know the evolution and survival and improvement of the rfc series, so that help at all- or am I still off in the weeds.

A

Well, I I, for one am struggling with figuring out what what we would white in text.

I

Yeah and like I said, we figured out what the skeleton is for for what things uh it basically provides some pushback against the rswg. Basically um thinking they don't have a budget um there there's you know, there's a requirement there that things get paid for um and there's a way to make sure that happens, um at least for the rpc.

I

What do we do with respect to.

I

Do we do we put in the evaluation process for what is the public perception, the rfc series now and five years from now? um Do we provide a do? We do we have do we make sure we spin up an independent or uh independent body that that every five years looks at what's been going on and says, or we spin this thing up and go okay, let's look at, let's everybody who isn't involved in this.

I

Does this look like it's working, you know: do we we we get a half dozen people who haven't been putting their fingers all over the process or haven't been involved in the thing, and we take a look at what their view is of the system.

I

From the meta point of view again, I don't know where to go with the text. It's just one of those things that.

I

It it's a little bit like the whole pornography comment. You know I'll know.

E

I

Success looks like when I see it. Unfortunately, I also know what failure looks like when I see it.

A

All right so thanks, martin martin.

F

ah He leaves league with this particular sorry, yeah, there's, probably a couple of levels.

F

We could engage with this one um and I think, there's there's probably some fairly basic statements we could make relatively early on, but I think what mike's kind of looking for is an agreement on something like a mission statement or a set of principles by which the the series as a whole can be judged and and the success of the series can be can be judged, and I don't think that we necessarily need to have that as part of a process document, which is the work that we're primarily doing here, but it may be one of the the early deliverables uh or maybe maybe a continuing bone of contention.

F

I don't know, but certainly I'd, consider this within the scope of work for for a working group is to sit down and discuss what the principles are, that that drive their work and attempt to document those and and capture those. Ideally, what would happen is that in a relatively short period of time, some very basic statements can be made about what things people agree on um a mission statement.

F

If you will and and then more work can be done on an ongoing basis to work through some of the finer details of that that sort of thing there are some very pragmatic things you could say like the rfcs need to keep flowing, uh but I don't think that that's that's really particularly helpful uh at the level of being able to make decisions about whether something is good or not.

F

B

I think this is an important topic, but I suggest we put a pin in it and not talk about it in this session, because we're kind of working through these issues about our ir, our sea, uh you know contracting and all that kind of stuff. So I suggest we put an opinion for this meeting and uh but come to back to it in a future one and try to get some clarity around this.

A

Or maybe ask for contributed text.

B

A

um Yeah I mean, I think, we're all heading that way all right uh lucy, uh you wanted to say something nope, yes,.

G

Peter just cut me I I did, but peter just got me off, so um I actually think that this is a question about stewardship, as opposed to funding.

G

So I, like martin's idea of of something like a mission statement. I I it would be nice if people thought about the role of this committee and stewardship for this series, as opposed to the other bodies that are involved here.

A

And do you think that it it ought that text about that ought to be in in the document we're constructing now? Are we going to.

G

Are we going to demand that there.

A

G

I think if we were a working group that would be part of the charter.

A

Okay charter of the working group- okay, that's a good point um all right! um I think we'll take uh peter's suggestion and um move on to a different topic and come back to this one and anybody wants to contribute text. Please contribute text. So um where were we that that was 49 47 we're going to 49.

A

A

H

This has to do with the rsca performance evaluation.

A

Right so right.

A

I mean obviously the the llc has a a performance evaluation process that it would use for any contractor or employee and we're not about to get in the middle of it. But we can add to it right: we can. We can advise them on things.

A

Do do people think that we ought to have text in our document that that says that there's an explicit uh review opportunity for the community on the performance of the rca.

A

I

Yeah, this was in there when this was in there, assuming uh this was in there when we were talking about oversight from the rsab or the rswg on the on the raca.

I

As long as the llc has um has oversight on this position and the contracts are working their way back through there, um I don't know that we have to be more yeah. We've got that section in there. That really is somewhat problematic, and I think one of the things that that jay's gonna need to do is actually throw it at the at the lawyers um and take a look and see what what works there. But I also want to make sure that.

I

During the heather thing, I was told about a number of comments that went between the rs, our sock and individuals that weren't made available to heather. um I want to make sure that there's no surprises going forward um with anybody. We managed to hire for this role or whenever we're going to get somebody in there again.

I

A

Well, there is text here about performance evaluation. What would you change.

A

I mean we can ask you to review it and come back.

I

If jay wants to go, if jay wants to go on, it's fine, but I mean this is not a bad set of things. All I'm saying is that, regardless, what gets collected it doesn't get thrown into the bucket of this is a personal uh uh personnel issue. That's made available to jay, but not many available to the actual person.

I

B

C

Something we can document, and certainly the proposed text in the um in the uh issue tracker is um way too detailed um and uh way too constraining about that. I think that there there are times when it is reasonable for somebody who gives feedback to expect anonymity around that feedback um where, for example, we already do that within the nomincon process and that's well established, so I don't think we can exclude anonymity. It has to come down to good management of that, and I don't think we can um define it better.

A

Is there any uh anyone else who believes who thinks that we need to you know, provide additional texts in in this section I mean is, is mike on the ragged edge.

A

I

Like it like, I said, the the it it ought not. If I I believe that the I the the iad and the the rsa b minus the the rca, it should basically get better and review the comments. um If there is a an issue that's affecting the public, there really ought to be public commentary. I mean this is more along the lines of something like the public comment period for a radio station.

I

This is this is an organization that is serving the public good here and comments on a particular issue ought to address, ought to basically be something you can say in public rather than uh oh, you know the rca was mean to me and making them public will actually sort of focus people in that space.

I

Again, maybe you can't do that, but I've seen way too many back channels.

E

I

This in this process already that I I find somewhat offensive.

A

A

I I am inclined to say in the absence of a specific text proposal we're going to going to mark this as closed. I don't see anybody else worried about the issues where everybody agrees confidential and sometimes anonymous feedback is important.

A

um uh I don't think we need to say that um so unless unless there's someone else here, I you know and if you have a specific text proposal by all means, go ahead and propose it, and we can consider that. But I'd like to close this issue, otherwise.

A

That all right.

A

J

Without going into more detail, because I've already said some things in the chat, I just want to record it that mike is not alone. This concern.

J

Approximately saying that's cause of death, okay,.

A

um Again, can can you come up with specific text that would address the concern.

I

I'm happy to rewrite this section. I mean it's got most of what I want in here. It's just the only piece that we're missing here is the is the fairness piece of it with respect to the interaction to the um the rfea.

A

Oh okay, well, we'll we'll await your we'll wait. We won't close the issue, we'll wait for some text. We don't get it in a reasonable period of time. We'll close it john anything.

J

Else, I'm more than happy to have a look at that text along with mike or if I want to have a look at it. Sure, okay,.

A

Anyone else all right next one is.

A

A

um So this specifically gets into the um I mean uh confidentiality stuff.

C

So if I can introduce your brand, so what I'm? What I'm looking for here again is some form of community engagement around that the outcome of the performance evaluation process, um and um so uh just looking, you know, as I've put there, the community feedback, while often of high quality may be potentially biased or incomplete, and so just putting in some form of community check around that, and given that this is confidential, um trying to find a mechanism. You know a group that this can go to confidentiality confidentially. Who can be to do that?

C

So that's what I was looking for here and that's why I suggest in the rsab and suggesting this process.

A

Okay, um let's first ask uh do: do we agree with this? Is this the reasonable that this notion a reasonable anyone, don't thinks that this is not a reasonable thing to do.

A

Okay, you want to propose text for it.

C

A

H

um Yeah, I I I'm it's not clear that if, if the text is really that the um rsab will, let me just understand what we're saying the rsa is to be uh the review board for um for community feedback for confidential community feedback or for all communities feedback. I'm just trying to understand.

A

H

A

I think what's going on, is you start by asking community for feedback?

A

Then the llc produces a document which is what it believed is the performance evaluation of the rsea, which is confidential, shares that with rsab and gets their feedback on that confidential performance of overall performance evaluation that had community input and then, with that resp that feedback from the rsab the llc makes a decision on what to do. I get that right. Jay.

C

Yeah that feedback is included in the final report. That then goes to the llc board. Yes, I'm suggesting.

C

So two is actually a draft performance evaluation or a you know, a everything so far the rsab gets the chance to add. You know um challenge whatever do those bits on that and it says in the in my text the rsa b, excluding the rsca. He does.

C

A

J

Media verification, it sounds like we're putting the rsa b in. What's the situation that.

J

On technical documents, which is that there's a last call, it's public a document the document gets produced by um by inviting sponsoring a d, uh the iab can take uh input directly from individuals and confidence with regard to the risk community issue. Rather they put in confidence with and then and then feed that back and makes, and some decisions happen with the only difference being the llc makes. The final decision is that a correct.

J

A

Jay sounds like it. It sounds like just what what what uh elliott wrote.

J

Okay, I I can't read what elliot wrote.

A

Without uh horrible contributions step, one community feedback step, two llc produces draft performance uh goes to the rsa, goes to the rsab. Ricb provides feedback on that draft to the llc, and the llc makes a decision. Okay. Thank you very much.

E

The community feedback go to the llc or the rsab.

A

Mary, I didn't hear that.

E

uh Step one is community feedback, but who collects the community feedback, the lsc or the rsa.

A

uh The draft as the llc does, okay- actually it says the ed does right. That's the current text.

E

And then the this feedback is shared with the rsab or it's only the performance evaluation, which includes the feedback to some extent.

A

A

A

All right, we will construct text that reflects these three steps uh and then see where we are with that text.

A

Any any other comments.

A

That's where we're going all right. um So there was a question of whether 25 item 25 is in this bucket of rsca management. um You want to look at that and decide 25.

A

We weren't sure if it did.

B

Yeah, that's about the that's about the srw, which that this is one of the older issues that doesn't have a clear explanation. Really, so I'm kind of curious it seems like it might relate. But uh I defer to elliott since he's the one to type that one in.

H

Oh, look: I'm actually um not muted, okay, so um yeah there, there isn't a lot here. I I basically copied this down. um I think it was probably this part. It was. I think this really came from mike actually, but I did a such a piss-poor job of of documenting it that unless mike you you'd like to to elaborate on this, maybe we close and if you want to open another issue, that's fine mike. Why don't you take a shot? Because I think that I I was aiming this based on some feedback from you.

H

But again I I didn't provide any context, so I didn't do a good job there. But if you'd like to comment now- maybe maybe it's a good time.

I

This is just a simple question. This is just a simple question in when we hired john, the statement of work was written by the rsoc with public input and ended up being about 80 of the text. I provided by the time all was said and done um prior to that it was. uh um It was done by the i8 by various iab members, um and then uh I guess with the input of the uh lawyers and then finally, finally, the iaoc at the time, but then had to be vetted by isak.

I

So there's this new model um does the does the llc write it um and jay is going? No, no, no, no, no! No, even though he can't see him but putting it in and actually having a plan for writing. The statement. Work for the for the raca is actually kind of important. If we want to get actually get this done in less than five years.

A

Jd, you have an.

K

E

A

Go ahead go ahead! If you wanted to say something.

C

um The the level of detail that we are going through in this process um actually goes a long way towards understanding what that statement of work should be um so um uh you know yeah, I'm. If you'd asked me some weeks ago, I would have gone no, no, no! No! No! um Now I'm um okay! Yes, the llc can do it and circulate it or um consultation with the community, as martin suggested.

I

H

All right so we'll add that in and I'm just gonna suggest I'll mark that as text needed, so that uh peter that's your your hint that we have some sort of text here. Yep.

A

This is good, it was fart and we made some progress on it, but we need some text so we'll hold it all right. That actually is the completion of the rsea management list and we're on to the last item on the priority list of issues which is defining success, issue 47.

B

Yeah we already.

H

Like that one for today, yeah um we did have so we do have one more thing that I just want to mention, which is, um I believe, the the chairs have discussed with peter trying to uh the the tempo by which uh the document would be updated, and um I think we were talking about monthly.

H

Roughly speaking, I want to ask peter first: are you okay with that, and second is the group? Okay with that.

B

uh Yeah with my document, editor hat on what I have seen working well so far for us is that we have an interim meeting or we have a meeting like this um text gets crafted shared on the list. We have discussion and then so maybe you know then, a week or two before the next enter a meeting. I publish a updated version of the document.

B

This enables folks to have a you know, a more stable working document that they can review, see how everything hangs together.

B

We can, then you know close out issues so that and I have been putting these traceability in the document, so we know which issues we're trying to close with each of these sections and then that enables us to then identify what the important open issues are for the next meeting and latherance repeat.

H

Yeah, I think that's about what what I I think works as well. Does anybody have any concerns with that approach.

H

All right, just on one issue: brian, are you okay? If we just briefly dip into one last issue, which is uh there was the delegate uh discussion that we just finished um that we just had some commentary on list.

H

We can probably knock this one off because I think we saw uh what I thought was emerging consensus sure. Are you go.

A

H

So um I'll just introduce where I think things are, um which is uh that uh the text that I saw fly by was that the the appointing bodies uh or the the will will set their own policies uh for uh how delegates are how they are represented in terms of uh uh appointing and withdrawing uh their their delegates.

H

I think I'm describing roughly speaking what was on list and maybe if we can just tackle that last issue, do people have comments about such an approach, and I think this is, I think, brian carpenter, and maybe one or two others uh got into that discussion and uh adrian. I think you commented it as.

B

Well, this is peter yeah. I I think where I saw that going sorry, sorry, brian, um where I saw that going. Take myself out of the queue is that leave it up to those bodies to figure out how and who they delegate to, and that seemed to be where we ended up and I'm happy to craft text along those lines.

B

Unless people have concerns of.

H

I

Yeah, I think, that's mostly fine. I think there will be a couple of things that won't be delegatable and we should- and we may want to indicate that in the document, um but what I was actually thinking about was the one we've just been discussing, which was the evaluation process.

H

Oh, you mean for the rsab itself.

I

For the art remember the hours there will be some tasks. We want the real members to be dealing with because we don't want to be spreading stuff around. For example,.

H

Yeah, let me just see if, if we can be clear on the on what's being proposed, because I think what's being proposed- is that, for instance, the ietf uh or the iesg representing the itf, however, they define their processes or the iap, for instance, could at any moment, based on their processes, withdraw the current representative and insert a new one um and do so as as early and as often as their processes allow them to do so. I.

F

Think that's what I.

H

Took that's what I took the the discussion on the mailing list to be.

I

Right and what I would really hate to have happen is have that happen halfway through the evaluation of a candidate for rsea, for example.

I

So I think I think there are some things that need to be transactionalized so that whole transaction happens with one person, as opposed to going off into the never never land, with possible lots of different.

L

People, I guess country review that seems like over engineering this. I think that the um the fundamental purpose of this equal is to represent the uh this, represent the bodies that appointed them and that guys want to swap them at any more or less anytime. They can, and I think the usual social pressure will stop them from swapping them on a daily basis.

D

Joel, thank you. um I I think I'm going to agree with slightly different wording with ecker. That is, I can't come up with any sensible way to constrain the bodies on what they who they appoint when they appoint when they reappoint.

D

On the other hand, it would be really bad if they were turning the members of the rsab and swapping them out at critical points and other such mistakes, but the answer to that isn't for us, the right rules, it's for the community to say you blew it in other ways, so I can live with keeping this general.

H

Yeah, okay, so um mike, are you okay with that as well for the moment and put it another way? um uh Let's allow the the pro this text until they do blow it, and if we have to add more process, we add more process later. Does that work for you.

H

Yes, okay, all right, very good! um Excellent! um Let me just mark that, so we have more text needed, but the text is pretty much right there and peter. I think you have enough to work with right.

H

Yes, all right! Good, wow! Okay, back to you, brian.

H

Can't hear you.

H

Still can't hear you.

H

You have muted yourself.

A

Sorry, um yes, so we're we're heading to the top of the hour. um uh So I think that's a great place to stop. We've we've run through all of our major items.

A

um There will be a um uh doodle for the next meeting, um which we will provide a long, a large number of options, because it's end of the you know it's summer vacation season and we will see when we can get people together and that'll range out the end of august, beginning of september.

A

um So look for the doodle poll to show up very soon um anything else. People want to talk about aob.

A

H

A

H

A

H

uh Brian, I think, actually we're making pretty good progress as a group, um I'm really impressed with the collaboration of the group- and I just want to thank for thank all the participants because they're, I think we're we're moving a pretty good velocity here.

A

Yeah, I would have said exactly that. I, the uh the the speed at which we're closing items and and not opening up too many in the process, uh is, is uh heartening uh and is definitely an improvement over uh what we were seeing not too long ago um and as always, thanks to peter for taking on all this work appreciate it anything else.

H

uh Thanks to our note takers, um this time around, um let's see here who do we have doing note-taking right now, I I have lost track, but I know we had someone and martin earlier, and so thank you to both thanks to both of you, um and we will see you on the list jared thanks jared. Thank you.

K

Thank you to everyone who corrected my typos and the stuff I put in wrong.

K

I tried to go as fast as I could.

A

That's good, that's really good! I I.

K

Really appreciate it like.

D

A

D

A

Md really works so well is that everybody gets to do that. It's really great alrighty, see you next time. Bye.

K

Bye, bye, um oh hey, elliot.

E

K

Do you grab it from here and upload it or do you need me to snapshot this and email it to you or do me a favor just send me the link and I can manage from there all right. I will email it to you in a moment. Thank you. So much bye-bye. Everyone.